West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/4/2022

Mr. Sankar Prasad Sen, S/O- Late Ramesh Chandra Sen - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Loknath Automobiles (Stadium Market) - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

Today is fixed for passing ex-parte order.

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant under 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties claiming principal amount of Rs.27411/- + interest of Rs 5482/- + compensation Rs. 300,000/- + litigation cost of Rs 10,000/-.

 The brief fact of the case is that the complainant‘s son purchased a Yamaha bike vide model no. FZSV3(ABS) for the consideration price of 98,680/- from Loknath Automobiles on 03.02.2020. During the process of purchase of the bike complainant went to the showroom on January 2020 and choose a bike of Yamaha Company for his son and asked the price of the Bike. The manager of the showroom said that the price of the said bike is Rs 1,22,000/-.Then the complainant asked the manager to supply the price details but they said that no such paper is available. The manager of the showroom said that ex-showroom price of the bike is Rs 98,600/- and remaining amount is for insurance and other purposes. The complainant wants to purchase the bike with the Ex-showroom price and then he will prepared the blue book and insured the vehicle himself. But the manager of the showroom denied to sell the bike with the ex-showroom price. Thereafter the manager of the showroom i.e. O.P. no.1 said that the ex-showroom price of the bike is Rs 98000/- and the insurance and RTO total Rs 115000/- is required. Then the complainant asked for what purpose Rs 17000/- is required in the RTO office. But the manager denied to tell the details.

 Thereafter the complainant wants to purchase the alleged bike for his son by depositing the cheque of Rs 115000/- but the manager of the showroom denies to take the full amount in cheque and said that minimum Rs 50,000/- should be paid in cash. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs 50,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs 65,800/- i.e. Rs 400/- was extra paid to the above mentioned showroom.

Thereafter the complainant asked for the tax invoice of the bike, but the manager of the showroom replied that without insurance tax invoice cannot  be supplied ,then the manager of the showroom  asked the complainant to pay 7500/- for the insurance and Rs 1800/- for the number plate (N.P). After making payment, the manager of the showroom said that it will take three weeks more to get all the papers. Ultimately the complainant gets the papers after one month. For that reasons the bike cannot be used on road for the necessity of the family of the complainant. So there is mental harassment of the complainant.

Moreover in the month of January 2021, some parts of the bike were damaged, then the complainant went to the showroom to inform the matter, but they did not co-operate. So the complainant has to bear Rs.3,031/- for repairing the bike. Again in the month of november2021, the said bike is in disorder, then the complainant again bears Rs 4,206/- for its repair. Thus the O.P.s did not co-operate the complainant.

The complainant files some papers from the website of the Yamaha Company which shows that ex-showroom price of the bike vide model no. FZSV3(ABS) is Rs 95,680 and on road is Rs1,03726 but the O.P.s of this case took Rs 19,278 extra.

Thus the O.P.s neither co-operator nor provide any proper service to the complainant .Therefore due to the negligent act and deficiency in service of the O.P.s, complainant is bound to file this instant case.     

 

It appears from the case record that notice was issued to the opposite parties and after receiving the notice the opposite party No. 1& 2   did not appear before this Commission hence, the case is proceeded ex-parte against O.P. No. 1 & 2 by vide order No.04 dt. 21.03.2022 & vide order no.08 dt. 17.06.2023 respectively.

To prove his case, the complainant has submitted the evidence supported by affidavit and the following documents

1. Xerox copy of a provisional bill mentioning the amount of Rs 115400/- paid by the complainant’s son.
2. Certificate of insurance of united India insurance company.
3. Bills of the motor cycle accessories of Yamaha (velocity motors) for repairing of the bike dated 27.01.2021& 01.12.20.
4. Printed copy of the price of the Yamaha bike vide model no. FZ V3.0 FI on road from the Yamaha company website.
5. Cash memo in the name of Amlan Jyoti sen of Rs98,680 dt. 03. 02 .2020

In view of the above mentioned facts the following points are cropped up for consideration.

 

                                   POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

      1) Whether the complainant is a consumer to the opposite parties?

      2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

      3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

              

 

 

                  DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

          We have heard the ex-parte argument by Ld. Advocate for the complainant perused the case record and the documents filed by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant purchased a Yamaha bike vide model no .FZ SV3(ABS) in the name of the complainant’s son for the consideration price of Rs 98,680/- from the Loknath Automobiles on 03.02.20. But as per the documents filed by the complainant, it shows that the above mentioned showroom has taken more amount Complainant also filed an online copy of the price rate of the Yamaha company. The O.P has supplied a provisional bill which shows that complainant has paid Rs. 1,15,400/- to the O.P., out of which Rs. 65,400/- has been paid through cheque and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. By taking extra amount from the complainant by unlawful manner, the O.Ps also commits unfair trade practice.

          The complainant also did not get any proper service from the O.P. Complainant is an aged person. Due to the negligent act and deficiency in service of the O.P.s the complainant is bound to file this case.

           

          Now, let us discussed all the points one by one

 

Point No.1

 

          On perusal of the record and documents, filed by the complainant, we found that complainant has purchased a Yamaha Bike vide model no. FZS V-3(ABS) in the name of his son Shri Amlan Jyoti Sen for the consideration prize of Rs. 98,680/- on 03.02.2020 from the Loknath Automobiles, the agent (O.P. No. 1) of Tirupati Traders (O.P. No.2). So, there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a bona-fide consumer to the O.Ps. So, the complainant is a consumer to the O.Ps according to section 2(7) of the Consumer protection Act 2019.

 

 

Point No.2 & 3

 

          Both the points are taken up together for the discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. It reveals from the cash memo of Loknath Automobiles that the complainant had purchased a bike of Yamaha Company in the name of his son Shri Amlan Jyoti Sen for Rs. 98,680/- on 03.02.2020.

          The O.P no 1 has supplied a provisional bill to the complainant which shows that complainant has paid Rs. 1,15,400/- to O.P no. 1, Out of which Rs. 6400/- has been paid through cheque and Rs.50,000/- in cash. But from the Yamaha Company’s website which has been submitted by the complainant, it shows that on road price of the bike is Rs.1,03,726/- in Kolkata.

          As per say of the complainant he has paid Rs. 7,500/- for the purpose of insurance in cash and Rs.1800 N.P (Number Plate). But no proper documents have been filed by the complainant in this support. So this cannot be considered. The alleged showroom has taken extra Rs. 11,674/- as per the document submitted by the complainant. Moreover, the people of the alleged showroom did not cooperate with the complainant and his son. They also did not supply the papers of the bike in proper time. Thats why the complainant and his son cannot use the bike on road for their necessity. So, they have suffered mental harassment.

          Though the bike is in the name of the complainant son Shri Amlan Jyoti Sen, the complainant file this case with the strength of power of attorney executed by his son.

          When the alleged bike in the January, 2021 was in default then the complainant went to the showroom for the help but the showroom did not co-operate him.

          As O.P no 1 and 2 did not contest the case despite of valid service of notice, so the case of the complainant cannot be disbelieved. O.P no 1 is the agent of O.P no 2 and O.P no. 2 is an authorized dealer. O.P no 1 works as an agent of O.P no 2 on commission basis. If this be so then how O.P no 1 can be escaped from his liability. Therefore O.P no 1 is liable as O.P no 2 for deficiency in service.

          It appears from the cash memo that the showroom has taken Rs.10,793/- for registration purpose and Rs.10,793/- for insurance. But in the certificate of the insurance it is mentioned that the total premium is Rs.7,447/- and from the slip issued by the Govt. of West Bengal State Transport Department the total fees has been mentioned as Rs.9,272/- for registration and MV tax. So we found that the alleged showroom has taken extra amount. So in our opinion they are practicing unfair trade practice.

 

            In view of the above mentioned discussion, it is cleared that complainant is a bona-fide customer under Op No. 1 & 2. So, in our opinion there lies the deficiency of service on the part of Op No. 1 & 2.        

              Under the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for.

 

          Accordingly all the points are disposed off.

 

 

         

Hence, it is

                                             O R D E R E D

         That the Consumer Complaint Case No. 4/2022 is hereby allowed ex-parte in part but with cost against OP No. 1 & 2.

 The Opposite party No. 1 and 2 is jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 11,674/- (Eleven thousand six hundred and seventy four) only along with an interest @ 8% from 03.02.2020 till the date of the realization by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 45 days. The opposite party no. 1 and 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- (Eight thousand) only towards litigation cost and Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only towards compensation, failing which the complainant in at liberty to execute the order as per law.

          Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.